What is baptism of the Holy Spirit?

[bmerr]

Michael,

bmerr here. Your diminished post was impressively brief! Perhaps we should limit the use of quotes from here on out. I can't believe they gave you 10,000 characters! The administrators always did like you better!

A parting though on the points Paul and James make with Abraham: There are three types of works described in the Bible that I know of. There are works of the Law and works of merit (righteousness that we have done - Titus 3:5), neither of which avail us of salvation, as Paul makes very clear.

The other type is obedience. It is in this class that Abraham's offering of Isaac is found, which completed, or perfected the faith which he had in God's promises.

I don't know of a single example in all of Scripture where a people or person receives the blessing of God without first obeying His command. So, while baptism is not a work performed by a believer, it is a command to which one must submit, in order (per my position) to be saved.

I have the ASV on e-sword, and here is how I find Acts 2:38 there:

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

To my eye (font change not my idea), untrained as it may be, it looks like "repent" is to the group, and "be baptized" is to each individual in the group, the result of which would be the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Is this pretty much what you've been saying?

I'll download the Bishop's in a minute if it's available.

I usually define repentance as a change of mind that leads to a change in action, which is very much like what you said. I would submit that it's not really completed repentance until the actions are changed. Would that be a fair statement?

Strong's defines "disciple" as follows:

G3101
μαθητής
mathētēs
math-ay-tes'
From G3129; a learner, that is, pupil: - disciple.

One who learns of the gospel is not automatically a Christian. Even one who believes on the name of Christ is not automatically a son of God. John 1:12 says that such a one is given power, or the right, to become a son of God.

Concerning the Samaritans, regardless of what spiritual gifts were manifested, would you say they were saved before the apostles laid hands on them, or not, since they had not yet received the Spirit?

I 've got to help my beloved fold some clothes, so I'll get back to this in a little bit.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Bmerr,

I agree. Limiting the use of quotes might make these easier to type. You can have a few of my characters if you need them. I've been told I'm something of a character, anyway, so... :smilewinkgrin:

I can see the differentiation of works, but I would differentiate them a bit differently than you do: works designed to merit salvation (which wind up being futile, vain, and dead), and works stemming from salvation. The two need not be different works; you can feed the poor, tell the truth, attend church each Sunday, etc., but it's useless to you if you're using it to score brownie points for salvation. Yet, those same works done out of a heart of love for God and His people are most certainly not futile, vain, or dead.

As for when Abraham actually found favor with God (and was, therefore, counted righteous), I believe it was actually at Genesis 15 when the narrative says it was. It was the favor he had with God through faith that prompted God to command him to sacrifice Isaac, and his faith that made him obey. I see the same idea with Noah. In Genesis 6:8, Noah found grace (or favor, depending on your translation, and I've no training in Hebrew at all) in the eyes of the Lord. Then he was commanded to build the Ark, which he did by faith (Hebrews 11:7).

As for Acts 2:38 in the ASV, that's basically what I'm saying. Now, a Greek scholar will tell you that there's a break in thought there, signified by the change in person, and that the original thought is resumed when the person changes back at "remission of your sins". The break in thought is shown most clearly in the Bishops, which uses commas to separate "and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" from "repent... for the remission of sins".

I would disagree that it's not true repentance until works are present; I would agree that true repentance will bring about works.

About "disciple", Vine's Expository Dictionary says:

A "disciple" was not only a pupil, but an adherent; hence they are spoken of as imitators of their teacher; cp. John 8:31; 15:8.

Thus, while a literal translation of the word "mathetos" might be "student" or "pupil" or even "learner," it's in the sense of someone who is a follower and adherent of the teacher. I am a student of my teachers; I am not their disciple. Furthermore, the consistent use of the word in Acts would say that there's more to being a disciple than simply learning about the Gospel. Remember: the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. And it is the disciples who are the candidates for baptism.

As for John 1:12, we must keep reading it: those who believe on His name, who were born of God. Those who believe on His name were born of God. Thus, those who receive Him receive the right to sonship. Those who believe are born of God.

The Samaritans: I believe that they were saved through their faith in Christ, had become disciples, and were baptized, all before they received the Spirit. There are a few things to remember there: The Holy Spirit had not been poured out on them as a whole, but only on Jews at that point (see Acts 8:16). Thus, the rule that someone without the Holy Spirit was not saved (Romans 8:39) was not yet in place, because the Holy Spirit did not automatically indwell non-Jewish believers. The miraculous manifestation--whatever it was that Simon saw--happened in order to show the Apostles when the Samaritans had received the Spirit.

I feel like I should be typing a lot more. A post this short just feels... incomplete. :laugh:

 

[bmerr]

Michael,

bmerr here. Ah, the joy of domestic chores! All part of the show, folks.

Getting back to baptism with the Holy Spirit (BHS hereafter), I'm going to try to present my case for a difference between the Acts 2 and 10 events and the Acts 8 and 19 events. I just don't think the same thing was going on, because I don't believe BHS is the common experience of all Christians.

- First, in 2 and 10, there is no human action involved in the Spirit falling on people.
- In 2, the gospel had ceretainly not been presented, and I don't think the evidence shows that it had yet been presented in 10, either.
- In 2 and 10 there were Jews who needed confirmation that what was transpiring was from God.
- In 2 and 10 the command to be baptized follows the Spiritual activity.
- Peter compares the events of 10 to what had happened in 2, (where is an unquestioned instance of BHS), and to no other time.

- In 8 and 19, there is the laying on of an apostle's hands prior to the Spirit falling on the subjects.
- The people upon whom the Spirit fell had already been baptized.
- There is nobody who doubts God's approval of what's going on.
- There is no comparison to Acts 2 by an apostle.

I could probably rack my brains and come up with some other comparisons, but for now, that's all I've got. I think it's sufficient to build a case on, though. Your thoughts?

Concerning 1 Cor 12:13, the biggest problem I see with it referring to BHS is the fact that one is left with two baptisms, while the Scriptures only support there being one baptism (Eph 4:5).

My view is that it refers to water baptism which was commanded by the Spirit through the apostles. Water baptism is common to most, if not all of the conversion accounts, while BHS is only seen in Acts 2 and 10 (which we can still discuss, to be sure).

I think that covers your last response. Looking forward to the next one.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

I think I'm going to address your post backwards, because the fundamental objection you brought against my view is the idea that there are two baptisms in it, which you see as contradictory to Ephesians 4:5. I think the last time we talked this over, I demonstrated for you that Ephesians 4:5 is not positing the existence of only one baptism (any more than the passage is saying there is only one "lord"), but that we as Christians are all unified in one baptism. Just as a first century Christian might have more than one person he called "Kurios" (Lord)--a slave, for instance, would call his master by that title--but was only unified with every other Christian in one Lord, a Christian may undergo more than one baptism, but is only unified with every other Christian in one baptism.

The existence of more than one baptism is attested to by the mention of more than one throughout the New Testament, and directly in Hebrews 6:2 (the doctrine of baptisms). That word is sometimes translated "washings," but the Greek word there is "baptisma" (well, its plural form, "baptismon").

So I don't see a system that holds that there exists more than one baptism to be a problem in light of Ephesians 4:5. The question to pursue, then, is what baptism unites EVERY Christian? You would say water; I would say Spirit. The verse itself does not tell us which baptism it is. And so I turn to I Corinthians 12:13. Now, that verse clearly tells us that all of us have been baptized in/by (same prepoosition in Greek) one Spirit.

So, now we come to your explanation of that verse. The problem is that the text itself does not allow for that sort of interpretation. The language of the verse would indicate that the Spirit Himself is doing the baptizing (my Greek professor, a Restoration Movement man himself, says that that sort of construction with "en" nearly always indicates something being done by something else, meaning that the Spirit here is actually doing the baptizing).

Now, you could make the argument that the spiritual baptism of I Corinthians 12:13 happens at the time of (and, for your theology, it would have to be never apart from) water baptism, but that would take our discussion elsewhere. Either way, we know that every Christian has experienced a spiritual baptism, because the language of that text simply does not lend itself to another explanation.

Now, I think I've built a fair case for every Christian experiencing a spiritual baptism. It's time to take a look at what happened in Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19 and see about your points.

I grant your point about the laying on of hands versus the lack of laying on of hands, but I don't think that in itself comes anywhere near to proving your case. I believe there's a difference between the method God used there for a reason. Let's go through the accounts:

Acts 2: The initial falling of the Spirit onto the Apostles--no one laid on hands for two reasons: there was no one with the Holy Spirit already to lay hands on people, and it was the first outpouring of the Spirit onto a whole people group.

Acts 8: Samaria--they did lay on hands because it was not a general outpouring as Acts 2 was, and the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit at conversion as the Jews did at that point.

Acts 10: Cornelius and Co--There was no laying on of hands because it was a second outpouring of the Spirit onto a whole people group.

Acts 19: Disciples of John the Baptist--They did lay on hands because there was no general outpouring, and yet it was deemed appropriate for the Spirit to manifest Himself miraculously when they received Him (maybe something along the lines of, "You've never heard of the Holy Spirit? Come here, I'll introduce you!").

So, the deciding factor seems to be whether or not it was a general outpouring on a people, and that kind of outpouring only accompanied people receiving the Spirit twice: Pentecost and Cornelius' house. The other two times, the manifestations were to show people (as far as I can see) that the new converts had, indeed, received the Spirit.

Okay, that takes care of points 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 in your list.

In Acts 2, the Gospel had not been presented, but those to whom it had not been presented did not receive the Spirit at that point, anyway. They were only made able to by the general outpouring that accompanied the Apostles received. I still hold that harmonizing all three accounts of Cornelius' household lends itself to the idea that they had heard the Gospel at the time of the Spirit's falling on them. So in both Acts 2 and 10, as far as I can see, the people who actually received the Spirit in the initial outpouring knew and believed the Gospel message.

There's point 2.

There's a very simple explanation for point 4. In the case of the Samaritans, they would not receive the Holy Spirit at conversion, but afterward, because He had not been poured out on anyone but the Jews yet, so obviously baptism in water would precede their spiritual baptism. In Acts 19, they believed and (I believe, from the witness we have through the rest of Acts of the pattern) received the Spirit prior to the laying on of hands with no manifestations of it, and then had hands laid on solely for the miraculous gifts--that is, to demonstrate that they had received Him.

Points 5 and 9 are easily explained. There was a unique element in the spiritual baptisms in Acts 2 and 10--the outpouring on a whole people. First, God showed that the New Covenant was to be extended to Jews. Because of that, Acts 10 could only legitimately be compared to Acts 2, because the three elements--the spiritual baptism itself, the miraculous manifestation of that baptism, and the general outpouring on the people--were present both times, but the third element was missing from the other two accounts.

Eek. I think that was a pretty long one, but you posted a lot of points worth responding to.

Michael

 

[bmerr]

Michael,

bmerr here. Part of Acts 2:38 promises the gift of the Holy Spirit to those believers who repent and are baptized. This promise is then said to be to those present, to their children, and to all that were afar off (Gentiles). It seems a reasonable assumption that the Samaritans fell somewhere in there as well. They were kind of viewed as "half-breeds" from what I've read of them.

Anyway, I do not believe this "gift" can be the same thing as was imparted to the Samaritans by Peter and John, since they had obeyed the gospel prior to the apostles being sent. Whatever the "gift of the Holy Spirit" refers to, it was received at their baptism, for that is what was promised in Acts 2.

Something else we might need to make clear is upon whom the Spirit fell in Acts 2. I may be mistaken, but it seems that you believe the Spirit was poured out upon everyone in the upper room at Pentecost. I believe it was only upon the apostles.

"They" in Acts 2:1 refers back to "apostles" in Acts 1:26. I don't think the words "general outpouring" give an accurate idea of what went on. It was only the apostles who received baptism with the Holy Spirit. This did, however, fulfill the Jewish part of "all flesh" in Joel 2.

[Any misrepresentation of your position is unintentional and subject to correction.]

The events in Acts 10 fulfilled the Gentile aspect of the "all flesh" prophecy.

In these two cases, there was no human intervention involved because it was Christ Who was administering baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8 and 19 were instances of people being given miraculous gifts of the Spirit, which required the laying on of an apostles' hands (Acts 8:18).

Acts 2:38 promises the gift of the Holy Spirit to those believers who repent and are baptized for the remission of sins, which covers all men since Acts 2, including those who were baptized with the Spirit before they were baptized in water, and those who were given miraculous gifts of the Spirit after they were baptized in water, not to mention the majority of people who have lived since the cessation of the apostolic age, like us.

I think if you are going to hold to the view that the Spirit baptizes us into the body in 1 Cor 12:13, then you are going to have to show the medium in which the Spirit baptizes. Christ baptized with the Spirit. Men baptize with water. What does the Spirit baptize with?

You know, I just realized that I completely missed post #82. I'll try to answer that one later. Time for bed.

I hope all is well with you and yours.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

As for the promise in Acts 2:38, I believe it was fulfilled in stages. The first stage was Pentecost; the second stage was Cornelius. Jews, then non-Jews. Samaritans were non-Jews. Like you said, the "all flesh" prophecy was fulfilled in two phases.

You're right that the Spirit fell on the Twelve at Pentecost. I think I used a little bit of confusing terminology. By "general outpouring," I meant that the Spirit had been poured out and was now accessible to all Jews upon conversion. However, He had to be poured out a second time to be made accessible to non-Jews upon conversion. That's why the Samaritans didn't receive Him upon their conversion.

I explained, or at least thought I explained, why there was human intervention in the case of the Samaritans and in the case of the disciples of John, but not in the case of Pentecost or the household of Cornelius.

As for the element of Spirit baptism, it is not far-fetched to say "Himself", or perhaps, "Christ". I equate the baptism by the Spirit with baptism into Christ. I admit that the Triune nature of God and the fact that we are now speaking of things for which physical representations are insufficient do make this a bit confusing. Nevertheless, here is what we know of this baptism through the Scriptures:

I Corinthians 12:13 says that the Spirit is the baptizer and that the Body of Christ is the element. It further indicates that all believers have received this baptism.

Romans 6:3-4 would indicate that it is a submersion into Christ Himself, rather than some physical element.

Galatians 3:27 would indicate that all those who undergo this baptism are thereby "clothed" with Christ. To take the illustration a bit further, one who is clothed with something is surrounded by, or immersed, in that something.

I see it, then, as a spiritual baptism into Christ.

This post has to be a record for brevity. I also hope all is well with you and yours.

Michael

 

[bmerr]

Michael,

bmerr here. Seems like a month since I was able to spend any time here, and I won't have much of a stretch this time, either, I'm afraid.

I don't think it was the Acts 2:38 promise that was fulfilled in stages, but rather the Acts 2:17 promise, which was originally prophesied in Joel 2:28-ff. The Spirit was to be poured out on "all flesh". Obviously this cannot mean every living person on the planet. Just as the promise that all nations would be blessed through the seed of Abraham was narrowed down to the person of Jesus Christ, the promise of the Spirit being poured out upon all flesh was narrowed down to the apostles, who represented the Jews, and the household of Cornelius, who represented the Gentiles.

The promise in Acts 2:38 does apply to all believers of all time since Pentecost.

I'm still going to maintain that 1 Cor 12:13 simply refers to water baptism which was commanded through the apostles by the Spirit. This is more than mere stubbornness, which I am as capable of as any, but due to these reasons.

1. The one baptism common to all believers in the NT was water baptism. Only the apostles and Cornelius' household received baptism in the Spirit.

2. The baptism which was commanded for all time by Christ (Matt 28:19) is to be administered by men, thus leaving us with nothing else but water baptism.

3. This baptism in which one is "buried with Christ" (Col 2:12) is described as a burial and a raising up again, which corresponds to water baptism, where one is buried in water, and raised up out of water (see also Acts 8:38-39).

4. In the two instances (Acts 2 and 10) where people were baptized with the Spirit, they were not buried in the Spirit and raised up out of the Spirit.

5. Those who gladly received Peter's words in Acts 2:41 were baptized, and there were added to them (the church, which is the body) that day about 3000 souls.

6. Strong's definition of "baptized" from 1 Cor 12:13 -

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash. (emphasis added)

I think your explanation of the medium in which the Spirit allegedly baptizes is lacking. Again, the Scriptures do not indicate that the Spirit is to baptize at all. If they did, there is still the matter of what the Spirit baptizes with, or in. The result of the baptism in 1 Cor 12:13 is that one enters into the one body, the church. It is Christ Who was to baptize with the Holy Spirit, and He did. The book of Acts is replete with evidence of water baptism administered by the apostles and others. There is no evidence of the Spirit baptizing anyone.

Michael, I don't want to seem like I'm pointing fingers, or making wild accusations, but is it possible that it's your theology demanding the explanations you've offered? I get accused of it all the time, and of course, I deny it, as any of us would, at least at first.

Just something to consider.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Michael,

bmerr here. In response to post #82, alot of it has been covered, or it seems like it has, so I'll just comment on a portion of it.

Regarding works. I agree that anything done to merit salvation is worthless. I might point to the example of Naaman in 2 Kings 5 for a moment, though.

He desired to be cleansed of his leprosy. He was commanded to dip seven times in Jordan. He obeyed the command (eventually), and was cleansed.

Dipping seven times in Jordan did not earn his cleansing. But his cleansing did not come until he obeyed the command. Dipping was a work, but not a meritorious one, nor was it a work of the Law. It was simply a work of obedience. Nothing to boast of.

"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (Gen 6:8). I believe the grace Noah found came in the form of the warning of coming judgment and the command to build the ark in verses 13-ff. Noah built the ark by faith, which comes by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17). Noah obeyed God's commands, so he could not boast of the end result. It wasn't his idea. It was just obedience. Salvation followed.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Schnitzelhoff:

"In Acts 2, the Gospel had not been presented, but those to whom it had not been presented did not receive the Spirit at that point, anyway. They were only made able to by the general outpouring that accompanied the Apostles received. I still hold that harmonizing all three accounts of Cornelius' household lends itself to the idea that they had heard the Gospel at the time of the Spirit's falling on them. So in both Acts 2 and 10, as far as I can see, the people who actually received the Spirit in the initial outpouring knew and believed the Gospel message.

GE:

I am delighted! This is what I have written a large paragraph on in the 4th volume of my book 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', and have taken as prologomena of the entire beginning of the Gospel-Church. I spoke of the 'Pentecostal missionaries'. They went BEFORE the "Apostle (Paul) to the gentiles".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

bmerr:

""But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (Gen 6:8). I believe the grace Noah found came in the form of the warning of coming judgment and the command to build the ark in verses 13-ff. Noah built the ark by faith, which comes by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17). Noah obeyed God's commands, so he could not boast of the end result. It wasn't his idea. It was just obedience. Salvation followed."

GE:

No. God use Noah because Noah was God's saved. 'What followed' Noah's obedience was only his being "saved as through the waters", as Peter put is. It simply was the saving of him and of his household physically.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

bmerr:

"I don't think it was the Acts 2:38 promise that was fulfilled in stages, but rather the Acts 2:17 promise, which was originally prophesied in Joel 2:28-ff. The Spirit was to be poured out on "all flesh". Obviously this cannot mean every living person on the planet. Just as the promise that all nations would be blessed through the seed of Abraham was narrowed down to the person of Jesus Christ, the promise of the Spirit being poured out upon all flesh was narrowed down to the apostles, who represented the Jews, and the household of Cornelius, who represented the Gentiles."

GE:

Neither need one to differ with you (seeing I agreed with Schnitzelhoff above).

You are right The 'Outpouring of the Holy Spirit' was the once for all prophetic fulfilment of the entire OT dispensation. It came as you say, in no 'stages'. Nevertheless it came as the prophetic baptism that saves and would save each and everyone that would come to faith through the baptism of Christ - the regenerating baptism by the Holy Spirit of the individual. (Compended, of the entire Church.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

bmerr:

I usually define repentance as a change of mind that leads to a change in action, which is very much like what you said. I would submit that it's not really completed repentance until the actions are changed. Would that be a fair statement?"

GE:

I think you are right. But in relation to salvation - which is the issue here -- it does not come first as you say, but follows as day follows night. Repentance is a change of mind that leads to a change in action. It is not really completed repentance until the actions are changed. True. Yet, Salvation is THE CHANGE OF HEART AND MIND AND ACTION AND PERSEVERANCE, the very initiating and instigating of the whole and all. Without salvation first, nothing will come of repentance, and nothing of holy action. One may encounter the counterfeit but too often, but it changes not the true specimen by the grace of God through His Holy Spirit of regeneration .

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Bmerr,

Good to hear from you again. I believe that "the promise" in Acts 2:38, since it extends to "all who are far off", is the same as the promise of Acts 2:17, since that one applies to "all flesh". There is also the issue of the promise. Peter started out with a promise from God, and then referred to "the promise" later. So it just makes sense to me that the reference would be to the promise of which he'd reminded them in the beginning.

Now, on to I Corinthians 12:13, let's take a look at your reasoning here.

1. This one is somewhat circular, because it is your conclusion, and yet you're using it as a premise to try to prove your conclusion.

2. Exactly; it was to be administered by men. And perchance there is no man to administer water baptism? Then the undunked believer has naught but the spiritual baptism of I Corinthians 12:13, common to all believers.

3. Here you agree with me that there is a spiritual burial in death of the old man, and a rising up of the new with Christ; you just believe it happens at the time of the physical reflection of it. I believe it can happen apart from that reflection.

4. No, but their old man was buried with Christ and their new man was raised up.

5. I don't see what this has to do with my argument.

6. So, since Strong's says that "baptism" can only ever refer to water baptism, therefore it can't? Watch that logic--you may have to retract that there was ever a baptism with the Holy Spirit on the authority of Strong's.

As for my explanation, I do not find it lacking. I simply put all the Scriptures together that I see on it, and what I found is that there is a spiritual baptism that puts one into Christ, the same way as a physical baptism puts one into water.

The evidence that the Spirit baptizes is I Corinthians 12:13, that plainly says it in language that really oughtn't be taken any other way, but if it must be taken another way, the only other possibility is that the Spirit is the element of the baptism.

The problem with the idea that it's my theology demanding these explanations is A) these explanations seek to look at the whole counsel of the Scriptures, B) I didn't start with a theology and then seek to support it; I started with the Bible and sought a theology from it. Remember, I began (was raised from the time I was a little child) with your view. And I saw little things here and there that didn't fit. So I started reading to see what the Bible really DID say. And every passage, every verse, began to fit together into a picture of someone being saved at faith/repentance (and spiritually baptized into Christ) and then immersed into water.

Now, on to Naaman. You're right in that it was a work of obedience. It would have been hard for him to boast of his obedience, but he could have done it (again, foolishly, as all boasting is).

Genesis 6:8 is an interesting verse just because of the word "grace". The idea according to both Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs' is that of "favor". Thus, the warning of the Flood and the admonition to build the Ark were because of the favor he had already received. Again, I think he could have boasted (had he had such a foolish heart) in his undertaking of such a huge project. The idea that someone can't boast in a work that is merely obedience doesn't make sense to me (I know that they shouldn't; I'm talking about ability). That would lead to the conclusion that the Jews could not boast in their keeping of the Law, since that was merely obedience to the words of God. Yet, that seems to contradict what Paul says in Romans 2:17.

Sorry if my thoughts were a bit scattered. It's the end-of-the-semester crunch (two weeks left--one of classes, one of finals).

Michael

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Schnitzelhoff:

"As for my explanation, I do not find it lacking. I simply put all the Scriptures together that I see on it, and what I found is that there is a spiritual baptism that puts one into Christ, the same way as a physical baptism puts one into water."

GE:

It never before occurred to me this text actually says (we) "all drink into (the) one Spirit"! This is Christ's baptism! For doesn't Paul here (as elsewhere where he says Christ was both the rock and the cloud) argue the Israelites were baptised in Him?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Schnitzelhoff:

"So I started reading to see what the Bible really DID say. And every passage, every verse, began to fit together into a picture of someone being saved at faith/repentance (and spiritually baptized into Christ) and then immersed into water."

GE:

I followed exactly the same route (God steering I believe), but did not come to the exact conclusion, ".... and then immersed into water". That observation I was able to make in two instances only of Apostolic dispensation and proportion --- not to be aspired at, because theirs was a Divine calling and authorisation never to belong or given to another generation again.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

On the contrary, as your verse 1Cor12:13 states, as we all drank "into the Spirit", "we all into one Body were baptised"!

 

[Snitzelhoff]

This is a bump on behalf of Bmerr who couldn't find the thread.

Michael

 

[bmerr]

Michael,

bmerr here. Thanks for the bump. I really didn't mean to be away for so long, but I've had too many irons in the fire lately. My own doing, I'm afraid. Workaholism, perhaps....?

I believe we're both doing our best to look honestly at the Scriptures, taking the whole council of God into view, and yet, while you began with a view similar to mine, I began with a view similar to yours, believe it or not. And here we are, on opposing sides of the issue. All in all, though, we're not terribly far apart.

Regarding Acts 2:17, I don't think it's the same promise as that of Acts 2:38-ff. In 2:16, Peter said that the spectacle the audience was witnessing, (the sound of a mighty rushing wind, the apostles speaking in tongues, etc), was that which was promised by the prophet Joel, and he goes on to cite Joel 2:28-32. As I heard one man say, "When an inspired man says 'This is that', then that's that."

Now, it may be that the last part of the prophecy, "...that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" is the promise Peter referred to. I'd go along with that. Is that what you meant?

1 Cor 12:13. I can't recall the points I made about it without going back to page 9, so I'll just have to do the best I can with your responses to them.

The circular reasoning thing - yes, I'm capable of that, though I try to avoid it, knowing how irritating it can be. Given the fact that in most conversion accounts there is mention of water baptism, and the fact that H.S.B. is only referred to with the apostles and in the case of Cornelius (which account also mentions water baptism), I hold that water baptism is the one baptism referred to in Eph 4. It is the one baptism in the context of the unity of the Spirit.

Your point #2 clearly demonstrates that you are also capabale of circular reasoning :laugh: .

The one body is the church (Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18, 24). From the beginning of the church in Acts 2, people were added to the church when they were baptized (Acts 2:41, 47). I think you would agree that the baptism administered to the believers on Pentecost was water baptism, "...they that gladly received his word were baptized..."

I need to wrap this up for now. I cut my left thumb (bored with a sharp pocket knife - bad combination), and it's making typing difficult. Bottom line, baptism is part of what God commanded for those who would enjoy the remission of their sins. Who are we to say otherwise?

Hope your schooling is going well.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Very good to hear back from you.

I agree with you about us both trying to look honestly at the Scriptures. That's one thing I took with me from the Restoration Movement: in general, they have a real reverence for the Word of God. There are lots of genuine people who hold to everything they see in the Bible, and yet see things wrongly.

I also agree that our doctrine is not all that different. Your statement at the end, "Bottom line, baptism is part of what God commanded for those who would enjoy the remission of their sins," I would agree with wholeheartedly if we changed "would enjoy" to "have enjoyed".

At any rate, let's get to your most recent post.

Regarding Acts 2:17, I don't think it's the same promise as that of Acts 2:38-ff. In 2:16, Peter said that the spectacle the audience was witnessing, (the sound of a mighty rushing wind, the apostles speaking in tongues, etc), was that which was promised by the prophet Joel, and he goes on to cite Joel 2:28-32. As I heard one man say, "When an inspired man says 'This is that', then that's that."

I agree that the promise of Joel was fulfilled and accompanied by those signs in stages, but what actually happened at each stage? Each time the Holy Spirit was poured out, He was poured out on another portion of "all flesh"--first the Jews, then the Gentiles. Being poured out means He was made available to new converts from all flesh, but that in stages: first new converts from the Jews, and then new converts from the Gentiles. So I don't really see a separation from "the promise" Peter mentioned in Acts 2:38ff and the promise given by Joel.

To analogize a bit, it's something like if I promised a garden that I was going to pour water all over it. So I start with part of the garden. And then, I speak to those flowers individually (before I meet the nice men in white coats for talking to inanimate objects) and promise that any of them that opens its roots will receive the water. They are in essence the same promise. First, I promised to give them water, and now I promised that they will receive water. Now, let's say I continued and said, "And that promise is for all the flowers in my garden". It doesn't mean that the ones I haven't yet poured my water on will receive the water when they open their roots; it means they'll receive the water after I pour it out on them. But the promise of the water is still to them.

I see two things happening, I guess, in the outpourings of the Spirit: First, He is being made generally available for a group of believers (first Jews, then Gentiles). Secondly, He makes it known that He is now available via miraculous signs (speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc.). Thus, the promise of the Spirit being poured on people and the promise of receptive people receiving the Spirit are, to my mind, the same promise.

Sorry if that's a little confusing.

Also, I don't think Peter meant the last part of the prophecy, but the whole Holy Spirit prophecy, because of the way he phrased it: "And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, for the promise is to you..."

Sorry about your points and my responses being a page separated. GE had some things to say as I was responding, apparently.

And I apologize for the circular reasoning. The point that I was responding to was "The baptism common to all believers in the NT was water baptism". I think we were both circular there, because we were both arguing as a premise what we were attempting to prove. I'll chalk mine up to tiredness.

As for Acts 2:41, the Scripture does not establish any kind of causal link between baptism and becoming part of the church; rather, it merely states that those who received the Word were baptized and that they were added to the church. If there is a cause/effect in that passage, it seems that it would be that receiving the Word caused them to be baptized and to be added to the church.

In other news, in the height of coincidences, I also cut my thumb while using my pocket knife. Life's funny.

I hope you get a chance soon to pop back on here and respond.

Michael

 

[TCGreek]

What is baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Baptism of the Holy Spirit must be understood in two ways: Regeneration and empowerment. John the Baptist often says, "I baptize with water, but there is someone who is going to baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk 1; Matt 3). It is this baptism of the Spirit that Paul had in mind in 1 Cor 12:13, by which we all are unified into the one body of Christ.

But then there is a baptism of the Spirit that empowers for ministry. For example, the apostles on the day of Pentecost were already saved but needed to be empowered for ministry (Acts 1:8). They received power with the coming of the Spirit to witness of the Christ.

Another case is that of the conversion of Paul. He was told to go to Ananias to baptized and to be filled with the Spirit. I contend that Paul's baptism and filling of the Spirit is his empowerment for the ministry. Immediately, Luke tells that Paul began to preach about the Christ.